Roy Moore-Ouch!
Listening to Roy Moore, I don’t believe him.
This is why: He says, “These attacks involve a minor and they are completely false and untrue–about something that happened nearly 40 years ago…”.
Wait a minute, if they are completely false, how could they have HAPPENED 40 years ago?
This is what I would call a subconscious slip. The conscious mind can’t reconcile information fast enough to hide his true thoughts!
It wouldn’t be an unconscious slip — because the statement is written down, not spontaneous. Anyway, he has already basically admitted on the Hannity Show that he did date at least one of the (over-age) girls. Just saying that “something” happened, which he already effectively admits, doesn’t tell us anything new.
Your mind still leaks clues subconsciously whether you state them, write them or read them. Writing them down does NOT negated them. It’s very revealing.
I checked over at your blog because I figured you would analyze Beverly Nelson’s video accusation against Roy Moore (saying that he tried to rape her in a parking lot). I thought there were a few apparent holes or strange claims in her story. Also, her ‘crying’ came across as fake, because there were never any tears from her eyes. (However, her nose did leak some moisture at one point — not sure if that counts.) But I figured I would get a second opinion on it, so I came here.
Her crying was not fake. There were scientific markers to identify that it was valid.
I watched the video with the sound off and saw a LOT of distress. I wondered if she is just REALLY uncomfortable in the spotlight (which might lend credibility to her story). Then I listened to her without watching, and man… she’s still hurting after all these years. Even if I were to doubt the rest, I believe her.
Other than checking for real obvious issues like lack of tears, I have found that visual clues are mostly a distraction. The “Lie to Me” tactic of judging liars based on microexpressions (and things like that) mostly diverts attention away from the more important clues. Sometimes audio is better than video. And sometimes even a written statement can be best.
On the issue of her distress, considering that the event supposedly happened 40 years ago, and that she doesn’t even describe any actual rape, the emotions basically come across to me as too exaggerated. Even an actual rape victim — as opposed to a rape ‘survivor’ who supposedly defeated her rapist and escaped — would have processed the event by now.
I agree that parts of her presentation do come across as authentic. But I also see plenty of red flags. For me, I have a rule that multiple red flags in a statement must override the rest of the statement, even the seemingly ‘authentic’ parts.
Visual cues only raise my suspicions; they don’t give me answers, but questions.
It bothered me a lot that she read her statement. Lots of useful stuff was lost.
I’ve been under the impression that she has been deliberately not “processing” the attempted rape, keeping it to herself as much as possible, suppressing it. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood.
Well written but you seem uninformed about who Eyes for lies is, what her innate gift is and how it was proven.
Also, the language currently is “survivor” and has a different meaning than you explain it to mean…unless you’re part of law enforcement. But in spealized units dealing w this kind of crime, even they know the language!
Finally, it seems your comment about a rape victim even processing a rape by now sounds uninformed about sexual trauma.
PS your rule abt red flags makes sense to me, however I wonder if Eyes for lies feels the same…I doubt it…then again I do not have her capacity for this kind of thing.
Drew’s red flags are not red flags for me. I use totally different clues to spot liars.
I’m not an expert on such things but I wonder if it’s the initial aftermath that would sear the pain in a way that it still comes out. Watching her I wondered if you need to confront someone as part of getting better, point the finger at them. If you have to process while never having been able to hold the dude accountable for fear of repercussion, maybe that’s really constrained….pressured……just talking about it she feels all that pain for her 16 year old self. She sounds so sad at the memory. Really makes you think about late accusations….makes you get where they come from.
My take is: the incidents happened, he thinks they were petty and he now sees himself as the one and only victim. He believes he is above the law.
He has basically admitted to dating the older ones. My suspicion is that he may have also briefly dated the 14-year-old, but not actually tried to have sex with her on the second date like she now claims. He could be embarrassed to admit dating someone so young. (He seems embarrassed even about the others that were over age.) He might not have even realized how young she was. (She admits to telling him later on.) I don’t think I’ve ever heard him flatly deny dating the 14-year-old. He just says that he doesn’t “know” her, and that he never “abused” a 14-year-old.
He lost my willingness to assume innocence until proven guilty when he said he couldn’t remember doing it.
Came across this “statement analysis”, I think you’ll find it interesting. http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2017/11/beverly-young-nelson-statement.html
I did! Thank you.
He’s in a tough spot. I’ll try to illustrate with a hypothetical based on my real experiences. Around 21-22 years old at work I struck up a conversation with a new girl from a different department on a smoke break. She was friends (or maybe going out with) someone in my circle of friends. We hung out a few times (not alone but with groups of people, and not invited by me, had two roommates and someone was always coming over), and I might have “plied” her with alcohol at some point (meaning she grabbed a beer from the fridge). I find out later she was 15. There’s no way in the world I could have known that. I doubt I would recognize her today, and I don’t even remember her name. I never tried anything with her, but if she came out of the woodwork and accused me molesting her 4 decades after the fact what am I supposed to do? There’s nothing I could say that would make me sound innocent.
Bringing it back to Judge Moore if you assume the very worse three “accusers” told stories about how Moore acted lawfully, respectfully, and with full knowledge and/or permission of their mothers. Given how common it was for women to get married/engaged right after HS that’s not unusual. These stories are being used as evidence to support a claim that Moore acted unlawfully, disrespectfully, and in secret. Non-falsifiable claims like these are not fair to Moore especially when it happened 4 decades ago.
I’ll make one comment about Beverly Nelson, two different pens were used in that yearbook signing. I don’t see how anyone could watch that press conference then look at the following photo and not conclude that she is being extreme deceptive https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/51a486a3abc63971a5229d45e64905a10c329c8fd3b7da0b66bd1de2d298889d.jpg with her story.
Everything after “Roy” was added later, and probably by someone else. That doesn’t mean Roy Moore didn’t sign her book.
True, but it means that it’s manafactured evidence. It wasn’t done in 1977, the “Moore” was made to look exactly like his signature. Very deceptive. It also brings into question whether any of it is authentic, the “R” is slightly different and the “y” is completely different from his current signature.
There’s no telling (just by looking at it) when it was done, so it might have been done immediately after he signed it, or it might have been done a week ago.
Signatures tend to change over time, like any handwriting, like any personality. We’d need to see samples of his signature from back then.
Think of what would have to have happened for it to be done sometime around Xmas 77. If Moore paid with a check then she could have used that, but that would be such an odd thing to do. And I doubt she would have put the “DA” in there. Since my first comment here it came out that Roy Moore signed her divorce dismissal papers (I believe because of reconciliation, not sure), and that did have the initials of his assistant “DA” (because a signature stamp was used I guess that’s standard protocol). In my estimation that is probably the more likely source the forgery was based off of (it makes the most sense and the forgery is closer to that sig than a more modern one [example the second “o” is smaller]). It really wouldn’t make sense for it to happen in 77/78.
But the fact that she is willing to create and present a forgery as authentic is a strike against her credibility no matter what her intentions were.
There’s still no reason to believe the original was not done by Moore. She apparently “doctored” the entry in hopes of reinforcing it was Moore, similar to how LAPD did with the OJ SImpson bloody sock. If there is to be a criminal prosecution, that yearbook could introduce reasonable doubt without a truly excellent document examiner… but he’s facing a trial of public opinion right now, where the standards of evidence are not nearly so high.
There’s another explanation involving “chromatic aberration”. I’m not 100% because in this guys photos the ink become more black the farther from the camera it gets, in the CNN photo it’s the opposite. Still I don’t know enough about it. https://www.metabunk.org/explained-roy-moore-two-color-yearbook-signature-depth-of-field-chromatic-aberration.t9253/
That’s pretty cool. I didn’t know that could happen.
I still wonder if it wasn’t added later… at least the printed part under the signature. Isn’t it odd that someone would switch to printing after handwriting so much?
Chromatic aberration in the lens seems a valid explanation. For a flat piece of paper, most of the left side of the photo is out of focus, including the finger holding the paper, implying the photo was taken at an angle with a shallow depth of field. Those conditions will accentuate color dispersion in a lens. From metabunk ‘The color change is also not as abrupt as suggested, bleeding into the R of “Roy”, the first 1977 and o of “olde”.’ I can see the 77 is bluish and I would say even the y of Roy shows a color shift. Why would ‘Roy’ not have written the 77 during the signing? That makes no sense to me. Besides another photo taken square to the paper shows no color distortion. Both photos can be explained with high school physics.
I’ve recently come to a different conclusion. The re-creation of that effect by that site I linked to showed one of two things. First possibility is there is one set of ink, and it explains why the photo shows it shifting from one color to another. The other possibility is that there are two sets of inks, and it explains why one of them appears blue. I think the second reason is more likely. In the recreation the part of the line that’s out of focus because it’s too close is a light purple then transitions to black the further from the lens it gets. In the CNN photo the opposite would be happening (if there is only one ink). I don’t know enough about that effect so maybe it’s possible to transition in the opposite way, but if that is the case then it should go from black to a lighter color. However if that’s the case then the out of focus “DA” and “House” should be a lighter blue then the “M” in Moore, but they appear darker.
So I still think that shows two inks. I’m going to create a new account on that and post all the evidence and reasoning I have for why it’s a forgery when I have time later.
The CNN photo is taken straight on to the card and so lateral and longitudinal dispersion of the light will not be significant (it makes sense to me). I find the light effects interesting to look into but I don’t find it relevant to the point that there is a signed card. He said tampering had occurred or something like that. But you can only tamper with what already exists – a signed card.
I’d advise reading about chromatic aberration— it’s a complex topic because camera lenses are not simple or trivial devices, especially not the kinds used by professional journalists. For instance, one of the better Canon zoom lenses out there with a zoom range of just 70mm to 200mm has 20 lens elements and 16 groups, each interacting with the others differently at different zoom ranges and iris different apertures and different focal lengths. Chromatic aberration is definitely not straightforward, or every lens would be amazing quality because the design would be just basic math, and that’s not even close to accurate. Some lenses even have different chromatic aberration in one corner than they have in another corner. You might get a blueish cast on the top right, a red cast on the top left, a purplish cast on the bottom right, and nothing at all on the bottom left.
Since the straight on shots give no indication that the inks are different, I’d say chromatic aberration is the more likely explanation. Not a guarantee, but definitely more likely.
https://www.metabunk.org/explained-roy-moore-two-color-yearbook-signature-depth-of-field-chromatic-aberration.t9253/
If you look at the recreation that guy did as the shot goes from ‘out of focus too close’ to ‘out of focus too far’ the transition goes like this: light purple->purple->black->light black. If you look at the yearbook photo the transition goes like this: light black->black->blue->darker blue. I don’t know a lot about the effect but if the transition was the reverse of the recreation they I would expect the last part to be blue-lighter blue.
“Since the straight on shots give no indication that the inks are different” – That’s not quite right. I can tell a color different between “Moore” and “Roy” (and everything before). They look very similair, but it looks like Moore is more of a charcoal and Roy is a deep navy blue. The bottom picture is the best I can do to illustrate. There are exceptions like part of the y in Roy and part of the k in Hickory, but for the most part Roy and everything before it more closely resembles the bottom paint stroke I added, Moore and after more resembles the top.
https://i.imgur.com/onyWLA0.png
I suspect you are biased against these these women’s claims Tracker 🙂 Is it the case that you are skeptical of any such claims?
Of course, everyone has biases. For example I doubt Eyes will comment on Corfman’s recent interview because she doesn’t want to insinuate any doubt about their claims. People don’t call themselves courageous like she did, it just doesn’t happen. Despite there being plenty to comment on she won’t, and it’s precisely because of her biases.
So forget about my biases, and forget about (most of) the physical for a second and focus on a couple of my questions. Do you think Nelson really didn’t know that Moore did not write the ‘Olde Hickory’ and ‘DA’ part (that seems to be the consensus) when she said he did at the press conference? Do you find nothing odd about Corfman referring to get own actions as courageous, or can you find an example anywhere of anyone in any context doing it? One final question, so you think you can answer these without your biases getting in the way?
To forget about your bias is to forget about where you are likely to go wrong.
To forget about your bias is to not to be concerned with the truth.
To answer your questions.
1. Nelson likely knew Moore did not write the location and DA. But, that does not negate the parts Moore did write and those are more significant. Roy [32yr old] is wishing a beautiful girl [14yr old] a merry christmas.
2. I do not find Corfman’s statements odd. She says, ” …. I’ve had a lot of people that have come out an and have said that because of my courage that they’re able to do the same.” She is quoting what others have said about her and the statement isn’t odd. Later she says, “…women and men have come forward to tell their stories that have never had the ability to do so um because of my courageous actions. ” That seems a similar repetition of what she said earlier. Earlier others have called her courageous, now she acknowledges her actions as courageous. It may not be a typical statement but it does not stand out as being odd.
3. Biases are not something that you have to carry around with you like ball and chain. You can avoid them. From the standpoint of logic, that is the whole point of being aware of them, you are conscious of them so that you can avoid them, in yourself and in others. I could give you many examples of doing this. For example, I hadn’t analysed the style of handwriting on the card until recently. Now I have (it wasn’t difficult to analyse the handwriting) and what I saw confirms my viewpoint. DA and Hickory are likely written by someone else.
Because of your bias you are not likely to get to the truth of this matter. It is more likely that you will misinterpret the facts to conform to your original opinion.
I tried to respond to your comment but I was banned by Eyes. I’m not interested in circumventing the ban other than to reply to your comment since I already typed it out (Disqus doesn’t have direct messaging) so my next post will be my last.
But I will say one more thing about bias. I’ve been reading Eye’s blog for many years now, and like every other blog or forum I followed semi-regularly I generally agreed with most opinions. However over the last 2-3 years every single one of my major political opinions have flipped. Most places on the internet I used to peruse are not very tolerant of my new views. So I feel like I understand what it’s like to have two separate biases that are completely opposite of each other. So when I comment I really do try to account for bias. I found parts of Corfman’s first statements strange, but I never said anything about them and realized I couldn’t know the full context. However her Today interview was telling. Maybe my extrapolations are not correct but I am certain her statements fall outside what would be considered a normal response.
You were banned. That’s correct. I did it a couple of months ago because you were being rude, but I did it incorrectly and yesterday it went into effect when I realized it. It’s fine to have a different opinion, it is not fine to rude about it.
I remember I mentioned a video to you by some guy called The Internet Historian about the balloon boy affair, and when you used to keep track that was one of the only ones you listed as getting wrong. I just found out shortly after Richard Heene contacted that guy and told his side of the story in his own words. It’s really bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY
I always get uncomfortable reading men’s justifications and explanations about why a woman is not to be believed. Turns my stomach.
Biases are a two way street. Referring to your own actions as courageous is very strange. Try to find an example. People just don’t do that, and to consider it not strange requires a biased filter. Also court documents say that 12 days after the court date custody was transferred to her father then back to her mother. That suggests she lived with her father for 15 months. Wouldn’t that throw a monkey wrench into her timeline? Also she said she had only three encounters with him. Have you ever dated someone you’ve only met 2-3 times when you were that age? If so would you be able to pick them out of a line up today? Myself there are a couple of examples but I can only remember first names, and who knows if the image in my head is accurate. It’s quite possible she’s thinking of someone else. Click on the following link and scroll down to the guy holding the Newsweek cover for the Unabomber. That’s the original sketch artist. 10 years later the witness’s morphed the Unabomber and the original sketch artist in her head. Can you really certain she is recalling the events accurately? Keep in mind Roy Moore wasn’t a rock star like he was made out to be, his name received zero mentions in the local press until he ran for public office 10 years later. If you are certain you might be letting your bias get in the way of logic. As far as Nelson there is no way she didn’t know the ‘DA’ and ‘Olde Hickory’ wasn’t his handwriting, but she still presented it as such. If she’s willing to do that her credibility takes a hit no matter how you slice it.
http://robertexter.com/unabom/index.htm
There is almost always conflicting data. Some will be correct, some will lies and some will be mistaken. And a single person can present all three types of data. But, if Nelson has a card signed by Moore in the main, and he hasn’t denied it, and she has memories of meeting him, and other girls (now woman) remember him in the mall, then that is corroborating evidence. Much of the other information you mention I have not looked at. But from what I have seen I would say Moore is 90% likely to be guilty.
— regarding the sketch artist. It doesn’t make sense (especially knowing what we know now about memory) to do another sketch from the witness years later. But, I did find it worthwhile viewing.
And then finally the signatures themselves (only looking at the Moore part). There are three things unique to the yearbook signiture and the divorce dismissal: 1) the second ‘o’ is smaller AND slants right 2) There is a pronounced ‘o’-sized gap between the ‘r’ and ‘e’ 3) Those are the only two with “D.A.” after them. What are the odd that’s two signatures taken 22 years apart more closely resemble each other than any of the other 6 and both have “D.A.” and are the only two that we know for sure Beverly has in her possession?
Of course we would like more handwriting and signature examples and a high quality scan, but from what’s available the most likely scenario is she forged the Moore part of the signature using the divorce dismissal as a template.
All of the notations are comparing each signature to the yearbook.
https://i.imgur.com/Gc7vMMq.png
Tracker, the signatures and writing above look the same. It is only the DA, date, olde Hickory house that appear different. What does that prove? That someone added some details to the signed card? I do that all the time. Today your phone will tag images automatically. These are minor matters to my mind. That Moore wrote the beautiful girl etc and signed the card are the significant matters.
They all have subtle differences, as you would expect when looking at signature examples from five different decades. The two in Beverly Nelsons possession don’t have these subtle differences. Most experts from MSN sources have said handwriting changes as you age. If that is so why are the two most similar samples we have available supposedly taken 22 years apart, the only ones with DA after them, and the only ones we know for sure that Beverly Nelson had in her possession?
One answer to that is that it’s all a big fat coincidence.The other likely possibility is that Beverly forged the Moore half of the signature using the divorce dismissal as a template. Then you have to explain the two colors. Chromatic aberration of one ink is possible even though transition can’t be recreated. Or chromatic aberration of two similar inks can explain it. Plus I can’t imagine someone adding DA either. I can understand maybe adding the date and location notation, but would she have added DR or Police Captian? I just don’t see it. Plus she had to have known that wasn’t his writing, I see comments all the time saying “are people really arguing that Moore didn’t write the Olde Hickory part? No one is disputing that”. That’s how obvious it is. Yet she claimed at the press conference that he wrote that, and the he signed it “DA”. She had to have known that wasn’t true.
I want to ask you what you think about something the other accuser (Corfman) said. During a video interview with NBC Today she said: “But here’s the beauty of what has happened. The support has been amazing. Women and men have come forward to tell their stories … because of my courageous actions”. That’s super weird right? I can’t recall another person in any context calling themselves or something they did “courageous”. Maybe something like “worked up the courage”, but never in adjective form unless talking about someone else.
Then in the original WaPo article she said something else that registered as a little bit off: “I wasn’t ready for that — I had never put my hand on a man’s penis, much less an erect one”. Why bring up that comparison? At the time I didn’t know what to think of it, I had no context or demeanor to look at. But know what I think has happened is that she didn’t register it as a traumatic event, and there are so many holes in her memory she has had to construct a story in her head to fill them. These memories might feel real (like those who remember Bugs Bunny in Disneyland) but they don’t have the same emotions attached. Comparing an erect and non-erect penis might make sense to her if she was telling a story about some other girl, but if her recollections were authentic she wouldn’t remember thinking along those lines.
I still don’t know what to make of the “courageous” remark. I don’t want to think that she would just completely make something up like that. Maybe she’s heard rumors, maybe exaggerating a few herself, and she really believed so she told the reporter that she would come forward only if others were found. That makes kind of sense. She constructed an avatar, a character that suffered the abuse and had a story to tell. When she used the word “courageous” she was calling that character courageous, not herself. I don’t want to think she would go that far, but I don’t know. All I do know is now I find her much more suspect than before.
Wait! Did he say “…after 40 years of constant investigation..” ?
I think he did. I remember hearing it and thinking, “What?” And he also said “established”, which was telling. Oops!
A man in his late thirties pursuing girls still in their teens is repulsive. No matter whose “permission.” Women give men permission to abuse their children of all ages every day. Sad, sick truth. I am always leery of men who passionately try to justify pursuit of teenage women/girls, especially when they resort to technicalities about age of consent and such. As a mother, I would see nothing but red flags if an adult man showed interest in my teenage daughters, regardless of his profession or wealth. Men who feel entitled to young girls if they “earn it” through wealth and power feel very entitled to such pursuits.
I would expect any prominent politician to be ‘investigated’ by his opponent. He is simply saying that if the accusations were true, prior opponents would have come up with them sooner. All the ladies admit that they never accused him previously. Obviously he hasn’t ever been investigated by the police, or anything like that (even now).
There is nothing more simple than noting the words spoken. Interpreting takes more effort. Why the need to interpret the words of a judge, when those in law make their living from choosing words carefully. The facts are that he is saying something, but if you want to interpret them a certain way you can. Equally well you could see the double meaning implied in what he says.
I’m not sure how the conversation went from Moore’s statements to other things, but I’m with Eyes on this one. He is obviously very uncomfortable, fumbling easy words. Listen to the language. The only things he expressly denies are: 1) Providing alcohol to a minor 2) Sexual misconduct with anyone. His denials are very non-specific and he includes an “A man like me would never do such a thing” statement, which liars use all the time. He never says “I didn’t go out with a 14-year old” or “I didn’t touch the girl”. And sexual misconduct can mean whatever you want it to mean. This is politician talk, not honesty.
I think he did it and it was normal for him and that society at the time. Maybe he didn’t realize just how young the girl was or maybe he did. But he personally has never, as far as I know, denied the specific allegations against him. That says a whole lot.
The whole morass is complicated by the fact that they’re throwing so many different accusations against him, some of which are stupid and irrelevant (such as dating an 18-year-old, and kissing her). He’s obviously embarrassed about having dated, even without sex, the women/girls as young as 16-19, simply because today’s society frowns on that. But just because he’s trying to hide or minimize that one true aspect doesn’t mean that the accusation about the 14-year-old is also true. He does at least seem to deny having sex with her. And she hasn’t given an actual statement to analyze, but apparently she has some major credibility problems.
It’s funny how victims of sexual abuse often seem to end up with “credibility problems” later in life. It’s almost as if something significant happened to them that screwed up their whole life.
Ain’t that the truth.
In MY OPINION, this example is the same type of leak (and more clear/obvious) that Eyes was portraying in an earlier blog with Trump’s statement: “If Chelsea Clinton were asked to hold the seat for her mother, as her mother gave our country away…”
A lot of interesting positive language about something that he wants us to believe didn’t occur. If Mr. Moore were my captive audience, I’d most certainly note it and probably press it. I’d be willing to bet pressing for further info on his language here would result in more emotional leakage and wouldn’t be surprised to see an attempt to deflect in return.
It’s also worth considering that he stumbles hard as he even begins to speak all of this. When you consider the amount of microexpressions and body language related to covering the mouth or playing with the ears because the person knows what they’re doing is wrong, it’s hard not to see the stumbling in the beginning as another anomaly pointing toward the individual potentially acting dishonestly.
I’ve seen Roy Moore speak in other, much easier engagements. While he isn’t the most talented public speaker, it’s a far cry from his baseline to actually stutter and throw out seemingly unrelated words. I’m actually speaking in particular about the baseline he exhibits in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEYhcnfR4M — after he gets over what appears to be a moment of intense mental anguish at the prospect of getting up in front of people again, there’s a moment of elation. Relief? The crowd is on its feet, they seem supportive and it relaxes him.
I tried to locate the moment he began speaking about the allegations against him by moving my mouse cursor along the timeline and looking at his face. I was quickly successful. He’s very tense about this situation. It shows in his speech, in the shoulder slouch that accompanies it, the awkward choice of phrasing; even just seconds into his recounting, I’d be more than comfortable thinking “This feels like a high profile lie”. Now, rarely should a person think that when attempting to determine dishonesty, but I’d say a lot of the “symptoms” are there. A generally well-enough spoken individual, highly accustomed to speaking in front of people and I daresay no stranger to pressure suddenly turns into a blinking, stuttering mess that can’t remember what word goes where?
I’m barely into this mess of a defense he’s putting up and I’m well into my fourth anomaly in Mr. Moore’s baseline, so I think it’s reasonable to say there might be more to this.
Long story short, we’re seeing a lot of the same things erupt out of this guy when this situation’s brought up. It could be argued that the situation is simply high stakes, and that would be fair enough — I’d still like to see him get some face to face time with someone who knows what they’re looking for.
PS: HEY EYES!